Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Fitna vs Expelled – Is Islamofascism similar to Darwinian fascism?

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Are there parallels between the effects of “Big Science” Darwinism severe job discrimination against non-Darwinists as shown in Expelled, and recent terrorism by Jihadists?

The very controversial film Fitna offers a view on radical Islam and the Qur’an by by Dutch politician Geert Wilders, leader of the Party for Freedom (PVV). It was just released today March 27th on the Internet, and already has over one million downloads each in English and Dutch. Wilders alternates verses from the Qur’an with terrorist events and statements by radical jihadists. Blogpulse of Fitna already lists 2110 messages or 0.1% of messages, compared to 1618 for Blogpulse Expelled Stein.

Compare prominent Darwinist PZ Myers Insisting:

“Don’t tell me to be dispassionate or less unreasonable about it all because because 65% of the American population think creationism should be taught alongside evolution,. . .
I say, screw the polite words and careful rhetoric. It’s time for scientists to break out the steel-toed boots and brass knuckles, and get out there and hammer on the lunatics and idiots. If you don’t care enough for the truth to fight for it, then get out of the way.”

Perspective, Pharyngula, Thursday, August 04, 2005

Similarly PZ Myers advocates:

“Our only problem is that we aren’t martial enough, or vigorous enough, or loud enough, or angry enough. The only appropriate responses should involve some form of righteous fury, much butt-kicking, and the public firing and humiliation of some teachers, many schoolboard members, and vast numbers of sleazy far-right politicians”(objecting to a creationist high school biology teacher and the education commissioner seeking instruction in “intelligent design creationism”)

What differences are there between imposing the beliefs of believers in Darwinism on others, with imposing the beliefs of radical Islam on others? Is either compatible with constitutional guarantees of religious liberty and speech?

Do we need to describe and strongly oppose such tactics as Darwinian Fascism?

Describing September 11, 2001, Stephen Schwartz defined:

“Islamofascism refers to use of the faith of Islam as a cover for totalitarian ideology. This radical phenomenon is embodied among Sunni Muslims today by such fundamentalists as the Saudi-financed Wahhabis, the Pakistani jihadists known as Jama’atis, and the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood. In the ranks of Shia Muslims, it is exemplified by Hezbollah in Lebanon and the clique around President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in Iran.”

See: What Is ‘Islamofascism’? A history of the word from the first Westerner to use it. The Daily Standard 08/17/2006. See: Islamofascism at Wikipedia.

What do we need to do to vigorously uphold our rights to religious expression and speech? See:

fn2 [ Annotations ]

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Human Rights Day, Bill of Rights Day, and Human Rights Week, 2001

Universal Declaration of Human Rights

  • Article 1: All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
  • Article 2: Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, nonselfgoverning or under any other limitation of sovereignty.
  • Article 3: Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

The film Fitna is available as follows (warning, disturbing themes and visuals):

{PS DLH added “radical” to Islam}

Comments
Oh this is going to get very nasty once Expelled hits the theaters.DeepDesign
March 28, 2008
March
03
Mar
28
28
2008
01:27 PM
1
01
27
PM
PDT
This is a very snotty comment Leo. "in hopes of riling up those interested, but ill-informed onlookers, who don’t know any better." Alongst the lines of "Everyone else had better shut up."DeepDesign
March 28, 2008
March
03
Mar
28
28
2008
01:23 PM
1
01
23
PM
PDT
Bob O’H at 47 See the line after: * Imprisoning or killing objectors. “(e.g. in the USSR under Stalin for not complying with Darwinian Lysenkoism).”
Do you have the faintest clue what you're on about here? Here is one quote from him (source pdf):
The representatives of Neo-Darwinism, the Mendelist-Morganists, hold that the efforts of investigators to regulate the heredity of organisms by changes in the conditions of life of these organisms are utterly unscientific. They, therefore, call the Michurin trend in agro-biology Neo-Lamarckian, which, in their opinion, in absolutely faulty and unscientific.
Sound like a follower of Darwin to you?Bob O'H
March 28, 2008
March
03
Mar
28
28
2008
01:22 PM
1
01
22
PM
PDT
DeepDesign says,
Darwinism is an insufficent world view to act as foundation for a stable, sane society.
Where in the world did you get the notion that Darwinism is a world view? It's a scientific theory, and many have been foolish enough to allow it to permeate their world views. Blame that on poor education in philosophy and religion, not the theory. (Richard Dawkins knows more evolutionary biology than I ever will, but I carry more philosophical acumen in the tip of my left pinky than he does in the whole of his being.)Turner Coates
March 28, 2008
March
03
Mar
28
28
2008
01:21 PM
1
01
21
PM
PDT
-----Turner Coates: "The very way you have phrased your point is either muddled, if unintentional, or manipulative, if intentional. It is absurd to link a religion and a scientific theory in a single statement, as you have." I made a very definitive statement that should either be conceded of refuted. You ignored the bottom line and reached for a qualification, a sure sign that, as of yet, you cannot refute the main point. So, I will make it again. Neither Darwism nor Islam accepts the basic premise of freedom in which God confers dignity, dignity justifies freedom, and freedom demands self government. Darwinism militates against freedom by denying purpose in nature and the derivative concept of “natural rights.” To deny design in nature is to deny anything like a “natural moral law” or “conscience,” both necessary conditions for freedom. Islam militates against freedom by denying “universal moral values.” There is no equivalent to the “golden rule,” which means that charity is due only to “believers.” As a result, each relegates the individual to an inferior role in a master/slave relationship. The difference is this: Darwinism does it in the name of the state; Islam does it in the name of God.StephenB
March 28, 2008
March
03
Mar
28
28
2008
01:19 PM
1
01
19
PM
PDT
???? ???? It's not possible that a billion plus Muslims surrender the faith, but there will be war until Islam's silent majority (if there is such) rises up against the fanatical hatred that now convulses the religion---this utterly irrational hate for Israel, Jews, Christians, and other kafirs (?????). A reasonable read recommended for all nonfanatical folks in this thread is Dinesh D’Souza.Rude
March 28, 2008
March
03
Mar
28
28
2008
01:10 PM
1
01
10
PM
PDT
StephenB (42) says,
Neither Darwinism nor Islam provides a rational justification for freedom; neither ideology contains any basic teaching on the inherent dignity of the human person. Please address this point.
The very way you have phrased your point is either muddled, if unintentional, or manipulative, if intentional. It is absurd to link a religion and a scientific theory in a single statement, as you have. However much you dislike Islam, it deserves to be treated as religion, and not mere ideology. However much you dislike Darwinism, it deserves to be treated as scientific theory, and not mere ideology. And even if you insist on thinking in terms of ideology, there are huge differences between religion and science. But that last point is at the crux -- most ID advocates believe that science, when conducted "properly," yields capital-T Truth just as reading "the right" holy book does. I say that science yields only a tentative understanding, subject always to revision. There is as much more to Islam than Christians find in the Qu'ran as there is to Christianity than Muslims find in the Bible. A huge portion of Christian doctrine originates with theologians and church leaders who lived centuries after Jesus walked the earth. The situation is similar with contemporary Islamic doctrine.Turner Coates
March 28, 2008
March
03
Mar
28
28
2008
01:08 PM
1
01
08
PM
PDT
No equivalent to the golden rule in Islam? really? You must not know Islam very well. "Hal jazaa ala ihsaan-e illal ehsaan." Paraphrased roughly as "Is the recompense of good anything but good." This is a verse of the Qur'an. Now proceed on to explain it away.mohammed.husain
March 28, 2008
March
03
Mar
28
28
2008
01:05 PM
1
01
05
PM
PDT
It seems like you are loosing your cool here Turner.DeepDesign
March 28, 2008
March
03
Mar
28
28
2008
12:42 PM
12
12
42
PM
PDT
DLH says,
Neo-Darwinism may not be “Social Darwinism”, or Hitlers Nazi regime. However, similar principles undergird and lead to each of them.
You keep alluding to these principles, and you keep dropping links into your comments. Would you please explicitly identify the "similar principles" underlying the various manifestations of bad-ism?Turner Coates
March 28, 2008
March
03
Mar
28
28
2008
12:40 PM
12
12
40
PM
PDT
DLH (41), you've finally hit on an appropriate term:
Regardless of whether the “mainstream” does, the problem is with the Darwinian “Oligarchy” such as the NAS, PZ Myers Larry Moran etc. who do so, and enforce it with rejecting tenure, rejecting grants, rejecting papers etc.
I don't think there's a reasonable argument against the notion that the social structure of the scientific community is oligarchical. A disproportionate amount of authority and power lies with an elite. Personally, I think that's the way science should be. Of course, a movement trying to force change on scientific institutions through socio-political means wouldn't see it that way. Lumping Myers and Moran with the members of the NAS is absurd. They're simply lightning rods of Darwinist bad-ism. It's been indicated here recently that Myers does not yet have tenure at his institution. He certainly is not a member of the scientific power-elite. As a Canadian professor in a Canadian university, Moran has at best an indirect influence on science policy in the U.S. So I agree that science is socially oligarchical. But who are the prominent Darwinian bad-ists in the NAS, and what are the awful things they have been saying?Turner Coates
March 28, 2008
March
03
Mar
28
28
2008
12:34 PM
12
12
34
PM
PDT
Bob O'H: Turner Coates: Mohammed: It is belief in the “inherent dignity of the human person” that provides the ultimate foundation for freedom of speech. Like all “natural rights,” the right to self expression is, in essence the right to exercise one’s “moral conscience,” which is the individual’s capacity to recognize the natural moral law and act on it. It is only because an individual can act as an independent moral agent, (or act on conscience) that he can claim the right to be free from the state’s imposition of its own brand of morality, which, if not based on the natural moral law, is always arbitrary. Thus, true freedom, that variety which was provided for by the founding fathers, is the right “to follow the dictates of our conscience.” False freedom, that variety which we now unwisely claim for ourselves, is the right “to follow the cravings of our appetites.” The first leads to a well-ordered society; the second always leads to tyranny. In other words, we are becoming less free because we have stopped believing in our own sales pitch about Godly freedom. Neither Islam nor Darwinism accepts the inherent dignity of the human person, or by extension, the derivative principle that individuals “deserve” to be free. Under the circumstances, there is no thought of allowing one to self actualize or search for one’s personal destiny, because there is nothing “in” the individual (conscience) that could possibly justify it. That is why Darwinism and Islam tend toward centralization and tyranny. Neither accepts the basic premise of freedom in which God confers dignity, dignity justifies freedom, and freedom demands self government. Darwinism militates against freedom by denying purpose in nature and the derivative concept of “natural rights.” To deny design in nature is to deny anything like a “natural moral law” or “conscience,” both necessary conditions for freedom. Islam militates against freedom by denying “universal moral values.” There is no equivalent to the “golden rule,” which means that charity is due only to “believers.” As a result, each relegates the individual to an inferior role in a master/slave relationship. The difference is this: Darwinism does it in the name of the state; Islam does it in the name of God.StephenB
March 28, 2008
March
03
Mar
28
28
2008
12:18 PM
12
12
18
PM
PDT
Bob O'H at 47 See the line after: * Imprisoning or killing objectors. "(e.g. in the USSR under Stalin for not complying with Lysenkoism)." Imprisonment and death have happened to many scientists in at least one regime grounded on Darwinian principles and enforcing Darwinian dogma. Remember:
"[t]hose who do not learn from history are condemned to repeat it"
GEORGE SANTAYANA, LIFE OF REASON 284 (1905). {DLH changed "Darwinian Lysenkoism" to "Lysenkoism" per comments below}DLH
March 28, 2008
March
03
Mar
28
28
2008
12:16 PM
12
12
16
PM
PDT
Ekstasis (39): I, too, am well disposed to Sufism. To my knowledge, there are mystics in all of the world's major religions, and there is a remarkable convergence of their beliefs. Having taught Muslim students from America, a former Soviet republic, Africa, the Middle East, and the Pacific Rim, I can tell you that the spectrum of beliefs in Islam is at least as broad as that in Christianity. You should expect many Muslims to view Sufis somewhat as many Christians view Quakers.Turner Coates
March 28, 2008
March
03
Mar
28
28
2008
12:02 PM
12
12
02
PM
PDT
DLH @ 7 -
Consider some Characteristics of Darwinian Fascism/Totalitarianism ... * Imprisoning or killing objectors.
I see. Are you going to give us evidence that people have been imprisoned or killed for not supporting Darwinism?Bob O'H
March 28, 2008
March
03
Mar
28
28
2008
11:55 AM
11
11
55
AM
PDT
Also, Turner, you don't see me writing that ID is correct. It might not be. Darwinism is an insufficent world view to act as foundation for a stable, sane society.DeepDesign
March 28, 2008
March
03
Mar
28
28
2008
11:53 AM
11
11
53
AM
PDT
Yes, oddly enough. Only a purposeful world view allows liberty to flourish. "American culture is rife with bad-ist Darwinism." Yes. If we go with the Church of Darwin, the future of society will be very bleak.DeepDesign
March 28, 2008
March
03
Mar
28
28
2008
11:50 AM
11
11
50
AM
PDT
Turner Coates at 44 Do you acknowledge the importance of the freedoms cited in DLH 1? Do you acknowledge the coercive items noted at DLH 7 or do you hold that they do not happen? If they do happen, how to we redress them?DLH
March 28, 2008
March
03
Mar
28
28
2008
11:48 AM
11
11
48
AM
PDT
DeepDesign (26) extends the list of -isms:
Even if ID is wrong. You are going to have to find something to replace nihilistic Darwinism.
Facism didn't suffice, so we've since seen Darwinism associated with communism and totalitarianism and social Darwinism and, now, nihilism. Why not give up the shotgun and cast a wide net, bad-ism. American culture is rife with bad-ist Darwinism.Turner Coates
March 28, 2008
March
03
Mar
28
28
2008
11:44 AM
11
11
44
AM
PDT
Mohammed: Turner Coates: Neither of you have addressed my point. Neither Darwinism nor Islam provides a rational justification for freedom; neither ideology contains any basic teaching on the inherent dignity of the human person. Please address this point.StephenB
March 28, 2008
March
03
Mar
28
28
2008
11:31 AM
11
11
31
AM
PDT
Turner Coates on 11
If you truly believe that mainstream evolutionists are morally committed to forcing neo-Darwinism on the masses,
Regardless of whether the "mainstream" does, the problem is with the Darwinian "Oligarchy" such as the NAS, PZ Myers Larry Moran etc. who do so, and enforce it with rejecting tenure, rejecting grants, rejecting papers etc. See Richard Wiekart's From Darwin to Hitler He traces the connections. Neo-Darwinism may not be "Social Darwinism", or Hitlers Nazi regime. However, similar principles undergird and lead to each of them. See the parallels with the Global Warming vs Climate Change debates. Listen to: Vaclav Klaus, Ph.D. President, Czech Republic, We Should Not Make Big Mistakes over Climate Change, Audio Those who have lived under Communism or close to it are most sensitive to such issues of coercion. Re: "These challenges have NOT been suppressed by mainstream evolutionists." Maybe in Journals, but any hint that Neo-Darwinism is not "Fact" is vigorously opposed in textbooks and school science "standards."DLH
March 28, 2008
March
03
Mar
28
28
2008
11:15 AM
11
11
15
AM
PDT
mohammed -- It's a matter of values, not theology but If someone has theology that allows (or even demands) that force be used to overturn values that I hold dear (freedom of thought/speech) there are going to be issues. And this applies as well, btw, to Christian denominations. And I agree that many, maybe even most Moslems, share my values but if you do share my values you ought to join me in standing up for them -- defend Ayaan Hirsi Ali, condemn the murderer of Theo van Gogh, condemn honor killings, support the right of Israel to exist, support freedom of speech and religion in Saudi Arabia. I've known Moslems and I'ved liked them. We are in the midst of a war on terror, not a war on Islam.tribune7
March 28, 2008
March
03
Mar
28
28
2008
11:14 AM
11
11
14
AM
PDT
mohammed.husain, What is your opinion on Sufism? Do you feel that mystics in the Islamic tradition are a good thing, and should be encouraged? http://www.al-islam.org/beliefs/spirituality/suffism.html The reason I ask is because it is the one place within Islam that I have found a love for peace, and a "melting in God". And yet my Moslem friend that I see at the gym seems to have a negative regard. I asked him "but is this not a good thing?". He did not seem to have much of an answer.Ekstasis
March 28, 2008
March
03
Mar
28
28
2008
11:10 AM
11
11
10
AM
PDT
mohammed.hussain I hope I have fixed all the links. I do not know of any other Arabic scholars. Not knowing your location/expertise, I gave both Arabic and English links. Per: "“Islam Sword,” come on man." I gave a general Google links to all sites, both pro and contra Islam. Search on whether the Sword sura apply today or not! The major international concern over radical Islam is its commitment to use the "sword" to impose Islam on others. For modern examples see the plight of those persecuted by radical Islam in Indonesia and the Sudan. For historic examples, how did Islam take over the strongly Christian countries of northern Africa and Turkey. Do your homework before flippantly dismissing the issue.DLH
March 28, 2008
March
03
Mar
28
28
2008
11:04 AM
11
11
04
AM
PDT
DLH (11) combines parody and chopped logic:
At Darwinism’s foundation: Random Mutation + Natural Selection = Rule of the Jungle or Might makes right. Practioners then believe that since neo-Darwinian evolution is the ONLY “scientific” theory (in practice the only one allowed), it must be “right”, and all others are “wrong.” Therefore, as a “moral obligation” Darwinists must enforce it.
Are you just spinning, or do you truly understand evolutionary theory so poorly? A number of "living fossils" are anything but "mighty." Cockroaches have been around for many millennia, but I've never encountered one that could lick me in a fistfight. Again, to go from Darwinism to social Darwinism is a huge leap. Most present-day intellectuals are acutely aware of this. Allen MacNeill has done a wonderful job of explaining here a wide range of challenges to the neo-Darwinian paradigm. These challenges have NOT been suppressed by mainstream evolutionists. It seems to me that there is widespread acknowledgment that a paradigm shift is coming, but that there is simply no replacement yet for neo-Darwinism. If you buy into Kuhn's interpretation of the history of science, scientists will not abandon neo-Darwinism simply because shortcomings are evident. A superior alternative will have to come along. If you truly believe that mainstream evolutionists are morally committed to forcing neo-Darwinism on the masses, you have been living far too much of your life in the blogosphere.Turner Coates
March 28, 2008
March
03
Mar
28
28
2008
10:59 AM
10
10
59
AM
PDT
mohammed, is there anything i can help you with?DeepDesign
March 28, 2008
March
03
Mar
28
28
2008
10:56 AM
10
10
56
AM
PDT
Clearly, many of the responses I'm hearing are responses that are the result of our media that has sensationalized so much of the Middle East and Islam in general. Someone said earlier that "Moslems would murder infidels to cleanse their land." Well, can I ask you, have any of you encountered a Muslim personally whom they felt physically threatened by? It seems, as if your real positive experience of me and normal Muslims like me, is ignored in favor of images fed by the media of Muslims you've never met or encountered.mohammed.husain
March 28, 2008
March
03
Mar
28
28
2008
10:50 AM
10
10
50
AM
PDT
Mohammed -- A question for many of you: why are you content with such absurd understandings of a religion which has more than a billion adherents amongst cultures as disparate as the Malay and African people? I support a Moslem's right to express his view and try to persuade others to adopt it without fear of persecution by the state, and with the understanding that the state will conclusively dissuade others from interfering with that right -- and, of course, that is the status Moslems have in America. But do you not believe that a Christian (Jew/Hindu/Buddhist/atheist) should have the same right to proclaim and proselytize in Saudi Arabia or Iran? How about Turkey? If a Jehovah's Witness or Mormon goes door-to-door in Ankara what is the likelihood of him getting beaten or arrested? If you could convince me that it was very low, and show me organized influential Moslem groups working hard to make that the case in Medina and Riyadh and Tehran and Damascus, my opinion of Islam might improve.tribune7
March 28, 2008
March
03
Mar
28
28
2008
10:47 AM
10
10
47
AM
PDT
If you want to understand Ahmadinejad see this: http://www.countercurrents.org/qarai280907.htm. What does Israel's right to exist have to do with our conversation? Does Israel recognize Hamas' right to exist as a democratically elected political party?mohammed.husain
March 28, 2008
March
03
Mar
28
28
2008
10:45 AM
10
10
45
AM
PDT
mohammed.husain, I wouldn't jump to conclusions about DLH's good intentions. I'm sure it was merely a mistake.DeepDesign
March 28, 2008
March
03
Mar
28
28
2008
10:43 AM
10
10
43
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4 5

Leave a Reply